17 year old girl fights to stop lifesaving treatment

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
In this case, it looks like the treatment success rate is around 80%. Just a thought exercise, what if a treatment works 60% of the time? What about if it works 40% of the time? What about if it works 20% of the time? What about 5% of the time? What about if it has potential nasty side affects? Is there a threshold as to when the state can or should step in a force a certain medical treatment or procedure?

I'm sure every case should be considered individually but my thought is that the bar should be set quite high. Here, upon further consideration, I think the cause for state action is clear. We have near certain death on one hand and very likely life on the other.

If you aren't talking death or severe negative health effects I think the answer should be an automatic no. If the outcome is cloudy I also think the answer should be no.

The state should defer to parents unless there is clear evidence of harm due to the parents' actions. Here, I think they made the right call.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,896
7,920
136
In this case, it looks like the treatment success rate is around 80%. Just a thought exercise, what if a treatment works 60% of the time? What about if it works 40% of the time? What about if it works 20% of the time? What about 5% of the time? What about if it has potential nasty side affects? Is there a threshold as to when the state can or should step in a force a certain medical treatment or procedure?

For me, in this case, it comes down to the detachment from reality that the parents have expressed. "This isn't about death, my daughter is not going to die!"

So they refuse the actual treatment on grounds of... some fantasy?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Actually even with treatment her doctors estimate her 5 year survival rate to be 80 to 85%, but 0% without.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,597
126
so she can't make the decision now but in < 1 year she can? wtf?

latest btw:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/justice/connecticut-teen-chemo/

(CNN)The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state may continue to force a teenager to undergo chemotherapy treatments that could save her life.

The court said that attorneys for the girl -- who is 17 and therefore still a minor -- failed to prove that she is mature enough to make her own medical decisions.

The teen, identified in court documents as "Cassandra C," was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in September. Medical experts have testified that Cassandra has an 85% chance of survival if treated with chemotherapy. Without it, doctors say, she likely will die within two years.

Cassandra's attorney Josh Michtom visited her in the hospital after the hearing today.

"She's disappointed and she's frustrated that she's in this one room...and she can't leave," Michtom said after the visit.

In November, the teen had said under oath that she would get treatment, but she ran away and failed to appear at chemotherapy appointments. This, the court ruled, was an indication of Cassandra's lack of maturity.

She has been undergoing chemotherapy against her wishes for three weeks. After she missed follow-up appointments, the hospital contacted the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) out of concern that this was a situation of medical neglect.

After an investigation, DCF requested temporary custody of Cassandra. She was removed from her mother's home and placed with a relative.

At that November hearing, she was described as "very bright" and having a clear understanding of her medical situation.

Cassandra was allowed to return to her mother's home, under the supervision of DCF and on the condition that she agree to complete the recommended treatment. She underwent two days of chemo beginning November 17 but then ran away for a week, according to court documents, and after returning home said she wanted to discontinue the treatment.

Citing client confidentiality, assistant public defender Josh Michtom, who represents Cassandra, would not elaborate on why his client is refusing treatment.

Her mother, Jackie Fortin, said that it is because she does not want to put the "poison" in her body.

On Thursday, Fortin conceded that she is not in favor of chemotherapy herself, but she insists she has not influenced her daughter's choice.

On December 9, after hearing testimony from Cassandra's oncologist, a judge decided to return her to custody of DCF.

The following day she was admitted to Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford.

A week later, doctors surgically implanted a port in Cassandra's chest to administer chemotherapy medications. The next day, December 18, doctors started her daily chemo treatments, which are still ongoing in spite of legal maneuvers to end them.

After the court's ruling Thursday, Fortin told reporters "she should be home with me, her family, her friends, going through a horrible thing with all this and she's not, she's been taken away."

Fortin who was in court alongside her attorney Michael Taylor, also said "this is (my daughter's) decision, not mine and she's not making a decision to die."

Fortin added, "I'm still behind her."

The hospital confirmed in a written statement Wednesday that they are working with DCF and awaited guidance from the state Supreme Court. They would not comment further, citing patient privacy.

DCF has a legal and moral responsibility in this case, the agency told CNN in a statement Tuesday.

"Under this circumstance -- when there is medical consensus that action must be taken or the child will die -- the Department has a clear and urgent responsibility to save the life of this child," DCF said.

The statement also said physicians "tell us with certainty that this child will die if we stand by and allow the parent to do nothing to save this child." The agency denied CNN's request to speak with Cassandra or her physicians.

In court Thursday, an attorney for the state said that Cassandra is now in midtreatment, and that to interrupt the treatment would be "devastating." The treatment is to continue for six months, the attorney said.

Taylor and Michtom argued that Cassandra has the right to refuse treatment, even as a minor. They wanted the state to determine Cassandra is a "mature minor" and able to make such a decision.

Michtom concedes that maturity doesn't happen overnight. But in Connecticut, and many other states, 17 is old enough for a person to get contraception, undergo an abortion, seek psychiatric care or donate blood, all without parental consent.

Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the most curable forms of cancer, according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Chemotherapy is the common first-line treatment, the group says, and doctors usually combine four or more drugs that are delivered through a surgically placed catheter.

It is most common among young adults ages 15 to 40 and older adults over age 55, according to the American Cancer Society. Slightly more than 9,000 new cases are diagnosed per year in the United States.

Symptoms can include, but are not limited to, lumps under the skin, fatigue and enlarged lymph nodes.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,038
146
Does she have a right to her body or not?

not according to the law :\

so she can't make the decision now but in < 1 year she can? wtf?

It will always sounds arbitrary to some degree, but there has to be a line somewhere. Mental development is something of a fluid zone, over a several year time period, and there's certainly a scale of years that differs from individual to individual.

If the legal age of consent is adjusted from 18 to 17, then who is to say that a 16 year old isn't as capable as a 17 year-old to make adult decisions?

Bottom line is that there is a recognized need for the law to determine an age at which an individual can be trusted to make "adult" decisions about themselves, about anything. It will never be perfect for everyone, but the goal is to find the closest approximation that is biologically and psychologically reasonable for any person.

Now, the article did mention (or maybe I heard that this morning), that her lawyer can move to appeal her status as a minor--essentially convince the judge that the court should consider her an adult based on past examples of her development. I don't know--actual psychiatric tests, personal history, whatever. I think this is allowed when you are in that age zone so close to the cutoff.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,038
146
Fortin who was in court alongside her attorney Michael Taylor, also said "this is (my daughter's) decision, not mine and she's not making a decision to die."

I hope that this isn't what she said this morning, that I heard on the radio, and then misquoted here in my earlier post.

If so, then I got it very, very wrong.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
http://theweek.com/article/index/27...ith-cancer-fighting-to-stop-medical-treatment

Basically a 17 year old girl with Hodgkin's Lymphoma doesn't want chemo because she thinks it's 'poison'. Hodgkin's lymphoma is generally easily treated and has an over 80% CURE rate. (not just 5 year survival, but cure)

What do you think? Adults have a right to refuse medical treatment as they have a right to their own body. This girl is only 17. Additionally, her perspective of chemo being 'poison' seems a bit... well... teenagerishly stupid in that she's going to die without it.

I'm a bit torn, I don't know what the right answer is here.
Unless she's a hottie, I say let natural selection take its course.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,151
6,317
126
If I were in her orbit of influence and could do so I would arrange a situation if I could, that might cause her to have a reason to live, like care of a child or an animal that might die without her attention. Her life is worthless to her. She has no reason to live. That is what I would change if I could. Maybe even a boyfriend would work.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
Does she have a right to her body or not?

Minors don't have the same rights adults do.

When a parent goes to the pediatrician and makes their kid get a shot they don't want, is your question "does she have a right to her body or not?"

I think everyone agrees if she were 18 she would have the right to refuse treatment.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Minors don't have the same rights adults do.

When a parent goes to the pediatrician and makes their kid get a shot they don't want, is your question "does she have a right to her body or not?"

I think everyone agrees if she were 18 she would have the right to refuse treatment.

If this is an abortion thread, you'd say she had the right to her body. Just saying.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
291
121
if she wants to die let her.

it's her choice, even if it is a bad choice.

i applaud her for choosing death or life saving medical treatment.

she is probably against vaccinations too.
 

nickbits

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2008
4,122
1
81
I support her decision I would do the same thing. I only support medical treatment for acute conditions & trauma, everything else is too costly and not just in terms of $$$.
That is not a troll comment either, I really feel that way and have made many life decisions based on that viewpoint.
Let. People. Die.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Well my wife had cancer and chemo treatement. The chemo treatment did not work and they ended up removing over half her tongue. Chemo treatment is like torture. It is horrific. My wife was puking every day, lost all of her hair and damn near starved to death because she couldn't hold her food down. Her hearing was permanently damaged and she has ringing in her ears now (she has to wear a hearing aid). Her thyroid was also damaged by the chemo treatment and as a result she must be on medication for the rest of her life. She deeply deeply regrets ever having the chemo treatment. Chemo treatment will kill things in your body and will do permanent irreversible damage. Given its horrific side effects, I am not all too comfortable with the concept of forcing people to have it.
 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,181
35
91
If chemo wasn't poison it wouldn't work.

She does have the right to refuse treatment though, although I think it's stupid to when you have a highly treatable form of cancer. It would be one thing if she had a diagnosis where the chemo would just add 1-2 months, but 80%+ survival rate? Yeah, that's stupid on her part, but it is her right to be stupid.

I want to know what her actual reasoning is, and just a third-party summary quoted out of context.

Cancer treatments are some of the most invasive that modern medicine has to offer. Often the cure is worse than the disease. There are people who want to do more than merely "live" with cancer.

I had a friend with breast cancer who didn't want chemo because she'd lose her waist-length hair that she'd been growing for 20 years. I think she made the right choice.

You shouldn't be able to force treatment on someone if they don't want it. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to force someone to live if they don't want to.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
The decision is best kept between her and her parents. Her parents ultimately have (or should have) the position as agents for her. The process of a parent becoming their child's agent is perfectly natural, they have sex, conceive, deliver, feed, and they are their agent.

The process of a government inserting itself as agent for the child is completely unnatural and them going through the process of forcing her to receive treatment ends up being a net harm to society.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
If this is an abortion thread, you'd say she had the right to her body. Just saying.

You're equating a minor's right to refuse to allow their body to be violated to preserve the life of a non-person (the fetus) with a minor's non-right to refuse to allow their body to be violated to preserve their own life.

False equivalency.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I want to know what her actual reasoning is, and just a third-party summary quoted out of context.

Cancer treatments are some of the most invasive that modern medicine has to offer. Often the cure is worse than the disease. There are people who want to do more than merely "live" with cancer.
"Living" with cancer is a lot better than dying from cancer. If it is already terminal, choosing not to fight it is fine, but still silly.

I had a friend with breast cancer who didn't want chemo because she'd lose her waist-length hair that she'd been growing for 20 years. I think she made the right choice.

You shouldn't be able to force treatment on someone if they don't want it. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to force someone to live if they don't want to.

So, your friend chose rather than try and stop cancer from killing her, she will die with hair that will grow back. It doesn't take 20 years to get waist length hair, she is stupid.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
You're equating a minor's right to refuse to allow their body to be violated to preserve the life of a non-person (the fetus) with a minor's non-right to refuse to allow their body to be violated to preserve their own life.

False equivalency.

It would be more accurate if a minor wanted to get an abortion, it would then be even more complicated if a minor didn't want an abortion but the pregnancy was life-threatening.

Can't wait for those ones to come across, if these have already happened and had some decent media coverage, i'd love to read about them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
I want to know what her actual reasoning is, and just a third-party summary quoted out of context.

Cancer treatments are some of the most invasive that modern medicine has to offer. Often the cure is worse than the disease. There are people who want to do more than merely "live" with cancer.

I had a friend with breast cancer who didn't want chemo because she'd lose her waist-length hair that she'd been growing for 20 years. I think she made the right choice.

You shouldn't be able to force treatment on someone if they don't want it. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to force someone to live if they don't want to.

This treatment does not make someone 'live' with cancer, it cures the cancer. Hodgkins Lymphoma is one of the most highly treatable cancers there is. Had they started treatment sooner the cure rate wouldn't have been 80%, it would have been 90%+. Breast cancer is nothing like that.

We force medical treatment on minors thousands of times every single day. Should a 5 year old be able to opt out of medical treatment because they would rather eat pizza?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,498
50,652
136
Well my wife had cancer and chemo treatement. The chemo treatment did not work and they ended up removing over half her tongue. Chemo treatment is like torture. It is horrific. My wife was puking every day, lost all of her hair and damn near starved to death because she couldn't hold her food down. Her hearing was permanently damaged and she has ringing in her ears now (she has to wear a hearing aid). Her thyroid was also damaged by the chemo treatment and as a result she must be on medication for the rest of her life. She deeply deeply regrets ever having the chemo treatment. Chemo treatment will kill things in your body and will do permanent irreversible damage. Given its horrific side effects, I am not all too comfortable with the concept of forcing people to have it.

To this day I also have hearing damage from my chemo. (did she take cisplatin or some other platinum based one?) I wouldn't be typing this here if I hadn't had it though.

The person involved here is a child. We make children do things they don't want to all the time. If you want to argue making 17 year olds not minors that's fine.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Oh darn, I didn't read the article. Are her parents in agreement with her? Does she have parents? That obviously changes things.